It probably would be, unless you get to take an army with you to protect your borders(you can’t), and are allowed to use shipping lanes and/or are allowed free use of the freeways for commerce(you won’t be).
…yeah, it was a debate about bathrooms.
That was what opened the door. Like a “gateway drug.” It sucked plenty of people right in. It was the “debate” that radicalised me. Because, TBH, it could have gone the other way. Because a few years ago? I didn’t really understand any of this. All I did know was that “this doesn’t sound right.” I trusted my gut.
Unless you put the emphasis on the wrong word: I’m not claiming that this is “what they (the extremists) want.” It isn’t even what I want. It’s how I see it playing out. I don’t think we see another civil war. I don’t see the extremists making inroads to the more progressive states. I see both sides consolidating, entrenching. Both sides will continue to pretend everything is normal. But there will be “underground railroads for abortions” operating, trans refugees, stockpiling of medicines, underground book readings. You know, the typical dystopian stuff.
A few minutes after I posted this, this happened:
This is a good thing. The law hasn’t taken effect yet. And it shows the DOJ is coming to the party. Tie them up in court.
Speaking as a Missourian, I lean towards agreeing with you. The problem, as always, is what do you do with people like me (and there are a lot of us)?
No one, actually. The constitution was set up with the supposition that the states would act in the interest of their citizens. Which was never really the case, it was always for the wealthy and powerful.
True. However, Democrats doing something first and getting away with it removes any reluctance on the part of the Republicans to try something.
White, heteornomative Christian male world, provided they have the proper political leanings and a certain amount of wealth (poor need not apply).
And once they achieve that they will further sub-divide themselves and oppress each other. It’s oppression all the way down. Fascists need scapegoats to blame and hate and oppress.
And here, those who support trans rights are straight up called demons.
It’s never about protecting anyone, it’s only about hate.
These fascists have already claimed all of America; they will not be appeased by only controlling part of it.
That’s reasonable, but the fascists will continue to divide and conquer. Safety is only temporary at best.
But that’s not my main point. Following the advice of “they terrorize those other people, and I’m privileged enough to ignore it” weakens the core of liberal democracy. That we protect everyone’s rights so that our own rights are protected. Once we start to cut people out of that, that’s the end of it–the goal of fascism is to divide people into in-groups and others.
Y’all just knew Texas had to wave its flag here, didn’t you?
Texas agriculture commissioner orders employees to wear clothes “consistent with their biological gender”
Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller is ordering his employees to dress “in a manner consistent with their biological gender,” the latest move by the state’s Republican leaders against transgender people.
The agriculture commissioner? Don’t all farmers wear sturdy pants that can get dirty?
Sooooo…kilts for everbody!
'Twas my very thought this morning!
Montana, in the midst of its own anti-trans legislative pogrom, says the quiet part out loud: “better dead than trans.”
Which just goes to show… When a child is unborn they need to be protected. Once a child is born, fuck them.
Holy shit!
When I saw your post, I assumed that she was just being hypothetical (“if I had a trans child…”), but no, she had an actual trans child who was suicidal for three years and refused to lift a finger to help them.
This whole fiasco makes Poe’s law impossible: there is no extreme of apparent parody or sarcasm that can’t actually be sincerely intended. She literally said “I would allow my daughter to commit suicide rather than allowing her to transition herself.” (And yeah, I’m probably misgendering her child by speaking in her voice.)
This is not something you can reason with.
Probably still is suicidal, but mommy dearest probably convinced herself the child is “all better now.”
For anyone who hasn’t read the article, this is her justification.
“I was not going to give into her emotional manipulation because she was incapable of making those decisions and I had to make those decisions for her,” Seekins-Crowe said.
She continued, “I was not going to let her tear apart my family and I was not going to let her tear apart me because I had to be strong for her, I had to have a vision for her life when she had none, was incapable of having none.”
This is some cold-hearted shit. I have two daughters, one of which has had mental health issues and struggled with self-harm, and I can’t imagine someone who can call themselves a parent and take an adversarial role with a child struggling like that.
That’s straight-up fucking evil.
Oh wow. If that child makes it to adulthood, i wonder what they will say about mom. “Better dead than trans”. Just wow.
To me, karma is that waste of oxygen being charged with child abuse and losing custody of any children she has.
Remember, these are the shitstains who claim that gender-affirming care is child abuse. This is the mindset of these monsters.
Basically if the teen had died by suicide, the mother would have been 100% certain that was caused by being trans. Can’t help but notice the language “I was not going to let her break up the family, break me up” and accusing the teen of “manipulation”. In her mind it was the trans teen who was being wrongful and harming the parent by not submitting to that she knew better.
This is one thing about these people’s POV: they believe they own their children and those children only exist to perpetuate them.
Unfortunately, I think in some state (Florida?) there’s a bill or law that could cause her to lose custody if she actually helped her child with gender affirming care.
I’m well aware, that’s why I would consider this karma.